Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Light Bulb Ban Produces Hoarding In EU, FUD In U.S.

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the top-down-is-the-current-paradigm dept.

Government 1080

Lucas123 writes "The very thought of losing that pear-shaped giver of warm, yellow light drove Europeans to hoard Edison's invention [Note: Or possibly Joseph Swan's invention; HT to eldavojohn.] as the EU's Sept. 1 ban on incandescent light bulbs approached. China's ban on incandescent lamps starts Oct. 1. And, in the U.S., the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 effectively began banning the 100W bulb this year and will ban the most popular bulbs — the 75W, 60W and 40W screw-in incandescent bulbs --over the next two years. The end standard requires bulbs to use 65% less energy by 2020. But Republicans in Congress continue to fight the ban by hamstringing the energy efficiency standards through appropriations legislation, cutting off funds for the enforcement of the light bulb ban."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All Edison's fault (5, Funny)

FBInvestor (2738801) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449481)

I don't think this can be blamed anyone else but Edison. Had he have the foresight to create energy saver light bulbs in the first place we would had been saved from lots of wasted energy and global pollution. Being also an inventor, I know to be both inventive and pollution-aware in my inventions.

Re:All Edison's fault (4, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449569)

The irony is that there's now a huge market for modernized versions of the original edison bulbs, which radiate far more in the infrared and red, and far less in the colder portions of the spectrum. I was at a metting in the Andaz Hotel in downtown Manhattan last week, and they had chandeliers with maybe 20-30 of these bulbs each, producing very little light and a lot of heat, and then they had a separate cove lighting system so that we could actually _see_.

So basically, a massive waste of energy solely for the purpose of fashion, which wasn't even at all attractive, and made several people quite uncomfortable because of the heat output. Oh, plus they probably had to crank up the AC to keep the room from overheating.

It's a damned shame that Edison couldn't have invented the remote-phosphor LED lighting system, and instead forced Philips to do his dirty work a century later. But that's the way things go. Both he and Tesla were way too enamored of basic electricity. :)

What astonishes me is that people aren't installing more of these Philips lights—they are amazing. You can't tell the difference between them and incandescents, but they last forever, use minimal power, and look _really_ cool (but don't look at them when they're on—they're _bright_!).

Re:All Edison's fault (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449855)

Actually, that sounds like a good idea if actually done properly. How efficient are these infrared bulbs, compared to, say, baseboard heaters?

Re:All Edison's fault (5, Interesting)

danomac (1032160) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449915)

I can attest to this - I have retrofitted (over a year or so) my whole house with the Philips LED bulbs.

I have a fixture with multiple bulb sockets, I put in a 60W incandescent in one and the Philips LED in the other, and I could not see a difference in colour temperature at all. They stay warm-ish to the touch so you don't have to worry about spot heating problems in your home, they're great. Now they just need a bulb that can operate in an enclosed fixture.

It did help that our local power utility subsidized these bulbs, they're expensive - between $40 - $50 a pop. I got mine for half price because of the subsidy.

Re:All Edison's fault (1, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449631)

That's a bit unfair, don't you think? You're asking Edison to know the future here. He didn't have The Doctor to take him away in the TARDIS and show him what the consequences of pollution would be. They probably didn't think there would be any consequences and they probably had no idea how widespread the use of energy would be.

Re:All Edison's fault (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449779)

Nope. You're wrong. Edison should have saw it coming.

You're just parroting on typical slashdot groupthink.

YHBT.

Fuck Green (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449531)

It's not banned in EU per se, it's just banned as a light bulb. Meaning you can easily buy the very same product as a heat bulb instead. I do and always will use these bulbs.

Re:Fuck Green (2, Informative)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449639)

The EU has not ban a specific technology, it banned incandescent bulbs based on their energy efficiency over the last 3 years [europa.eu] .

There is a website about the change:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/lumen/faq/index_en.htm [europa.eu]

Q: Why has the EU decided to phase out conventional incandescent bulbs?

A: To reduce CO2 emissions (by about 15 million tonnes a year).

Lighting can account for as much as one-fifth of household electricity consumption.

The most efficient lighting technologies use up to 5 times less electricity than the least efficient

Energy saving bulbs can reduce a household's total electricity consumption by 10-15%, saving the EU some 40 billion kilowatt hours a year (roughly equal to the annual consumption of Romania).

Q: How will I benefit?

A: Apart from the long-term environmental benefits, energy saving bulbs can easily save you €50 a year (including the price of the bulbs).

And the money saved overall – €5-10bn a year – will end up going back into the EU economy, boosting overall prosperity.

So you're a twat. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449643)

You'll use those bulbs for the same reason why a four-year-old won't share their toys: because they've been told to.

Fuck you.

Re:So you're a twat. (0, Troll)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449771)

You'll use those bulbs for the same reason why a four-year-old won't share their toys: because they've been told to.

The trouble with your analogy is that I'm a grown adult...and the government is NOT my fucking parent....

Who the fuck are they to tell ME what light bulb I can or cannot use???

What happened to the free market in the US?

This is not something I voted for in any of my politicians....

Re:So you're a twat. (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449871)

This is not something I voted for in any of my politicians....

Then you vote libertarian? Because the Republicans use the exact same power of government when mommy government tells you not to smoke plants you found in your back yard as when the Democrats tell you not to use a hot light bulb.

Re:Fuck Green (3, Informative)

lookatmyhorse (2566527) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449731)

could you prove your statement? I don't know all countries, but at least in Germany you can't buy heat bulbs [thelocal.de] .

republicans (1, Insightful)

schlachter (862210) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449535)

fighting any and all innovation while hating on the gay and poor and giving to the rich...and now they're against energy efficiency? Amazing.

Re:republicans (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449565)

Do you actually think, or do you just parrot what the democrats tell you to say?

Re:republicans (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449617)

Get over it. The Republicans lost touch a long time ago - they are run by a demented fundie cliche that just does not connect with 21st century reality anywhere.

Re:republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449625)

I don't think democrats actually say that. Perhaps their followers.

Re:republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449661)

Do Republicans actually practice what they preach or do they just screech about obama while doing the exact same thing?

There is absolutely no difference between telling the government not to enforce the immigration law and telling the government not to enforce the light bulb efficiency law. Except, that Obama does one of them. I'd say Republicans do the other, but Bush's history shows us that Republicans do both.

Re:republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449727)

fighting any and all innovation while hating on the gay and poor and giving to the rich...and now they're against energy efficiency? Amazing.

Do you actually think, or do you just parrot what the democrats tell you to say?

No, we just observe Republicans and report what we see.

Re:republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449905)

No, we just observe Republicans and report what we see.

Maybe spend less time observing Republicans and more time observing Democrats, because Obama is objectively as bad as GW Bush, in just about all aspects of governance except perhaps charisma.

Re:republicans (3, Informative)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449593)

Energy use makes their buddies money.

It's that simple. Don't talk shit about "conspiracy theories" either because it's very straight forward and they're doing it in the open.

Re:republicans (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449703)

When you chose to add "the idiot" to the end of your name, that was a very prophetic decision.

Re:republicans (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449723)

Democrats complain Republicans don't focus on jobs, but when this lightbulb legislation shutdown a factory and many people lost their jobs and Republicans try to prevent that, Democrats complain.

Re:republicans (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449843)

when this lightbulb legislation shutdown a factory and many people lost their jobs

Citation? Or was it just a boo-hoo story passed around breathlessly by email from Republican to Republican that had no basis in fact?

Re:republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449741)

fighting any and all innovation while hating on the gay and poor and giving to the rich...and now they're against energy efficiency? Amazing.

Okay, you've gotten in your Republican bashing in, now here's a serious question:

How much money does there possibly need to be to enforce it? Do you really think there will be rogue MANUFACTURING PLANTS cranking out old-style lightbulbs that don't meet the new requirements? Hell, having one FBI agent on the job (PART TIME!) would probably suffice. So who the fuck really gives a flying shit that money from the enforcement got cut? Are you seriously complaining about it?

Re:republicans (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449829)

Some of us cannot use CFLs. The pulse is visible and causes eye strain and headaches. Slight exaggeration here, however it seems that you need to put small children in a hazmat suit when playing near the bulbs, you know, just in case they break. :)

When LEDs are made to be cost effective, I'll give those a try, otherwise, bug off and let me heat my home in the winter with my nice toasty bulbs and pay a bit more doing it. :)

BTW - Partisanship politics at slashdot. I am shocked. Let me see if I can enlighten you (100% pun intended). Most Republicans don't care if someone is Gay or not, they care if they pay into the system. The issue on the table related to Gays and Republicans is related to the term marriage, which has a biblical definition to many in the states. The answer is quite simple, redefine the legal term for marriage for all to be "civil unions" (or whatever) and fork over the same rights to gay couples as straight. Few Republicans would care about that answer. I'll skip over economics as that is likely a bit too involved for this crowd. :)

Re:republicans (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449835)

If the bulbs were *truly* resource efficient, and not just energy efficient, there would be no need for the ban because the bulbs themselves would be cheaper.

I charge that in fact it is more polluting, overall, to create a CF bulb, and that's why they are more expensive.

Re:republicans (0)

jzs (516075) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449891)

No. They're not against energy efficiency. They're against the state dictating what light bulbs people buy. It's just freedom. I used compact fluorescents and encourage others to also. I also wear a seat belt. But I'm 100% against the state telling me to wear a seat belt or what light bulbs to buy, or anything else for that matter.

Ban is dumb (5, Insightful)

JMZero (449047) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449541)

Should be a tax. Encourage people to make the right choices, but don't screw people who have special circumstances or are willing to compensate society for the cost of their preference.

Re:Ban is dumb (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449595)

Isn't this true for everything?

Re:Ban is dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449653)

The "tax" should be higher energy costs. Taxes shouldn't be used to modify behavior.

Re:Ban is dumb (4, Insightful)

Imsdal (930595) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449845)

Taxes should indeed be used to modify behavior. High taxes on energy, tobacco and alcohol makes perfect sense. High taxes on labor makes no sense. In this case, taxing energy should be enough to make cheaper sources of light preferrable for consumers.

Re:Ban is dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449877)

Taxes should indeed be used to modify behavior. High taxes on energy, tobacco and alcohol makes perfect sense

Only if you're a fascist.

Democrats (-1, Flamebait)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449659)

Telling me that my current solution is just plain wrong for several reasons, and offering me a replacement that costs between 4 and 20 times what I have now, works a little differently, and will 'save me money' over the 'long haul'. Despite the math telling me it will save me money never.

CFL seems so good, except of course I can't even dispose of them - they do need to be recycled, assuming those cardboard boxes actually get send to a recycling center and that center actually recycles the phospors. And since most of my CFL usage is for brief periods, the payback is longer than the often quoted examples. Thanks, guys.

LED lights would save more electricity, last a LOT longer, but cost a LOT more. Thanks, guys.

Typical Democratic response, tell me how I should live, and declare my complaints as not merely petty and ignorant, but dangerous and evil.

As if there's a shred of difference between the two parties, nor any viable alternative on the horizon. We are staring at our doom.

Re:Ban is dumb (4, Interesting)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449667)

Agreed, cigarettes are harmful too, but it's still legal to sell them. They just get taxed into oblivion. The same should be true for incandescent light bulbs.

Re:Ban is dumb (5, Insightful)

rockytopchip (1398125) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449671)

There already is a built in tax. Buy the less efficient bulb, pay more for energy costs. Some people prefer incandescent bulbs, do you want to take away their freedom to choose? Let the market decide the issue, keep government out of it.

Re:Ban is dumb (3, Interesting)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449807)

Energy use is heavily subsdized, and the same people who hate bans, hate taxes even more. People aren't willing to pay taxes, so the next rung down has to be used.

Re:Ban is dumb (2)

bassman998 (922503) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449735)

Agreed. 60W incandescents have been working great as a basking light for our turtle for years... an application that requires light and heat. I'm sure in a few years, I'll have to start purchasing incredibly expensive specialty bulbs. I'd rather keep buying incandescents, and pay an extra tax that goes toward energy research, environmental benefits, or something along those lines.

Re:Ban is dumb (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449853)

Yeah, "you're sure" the same bulb will become incredibly expensive. Look, I don't like the ban either, but that sort of crap is exactly why TFS talks about FUD.

Re:Ban is dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449781)

THIS. God damn are they this stupid?
Put taxes on bad things and watch the problem solve itself.

The only legit use for these bulbs are for their heating+lighting ability (such as artificial fire places, keeping food warm and lit on display)
And considering these are pretty wasteful as is (depending on who you are), still pretty balancing-act at that. (I quite like a potato fritter left to dry a little under their warming glow, so I would be punishing myself as well)

New lights are good now. LEDs are also catching up with brightness and price.
If you want that yellow-glow back, I'm sure there are people who sell filters for things like it.
If you are smart and own a store, you could make a market out of it with a very simple idea. Go, run with it.
You can also use the fact that it is medically better for you as well. (since it is, it is better on the eyes than pure white, and it won't screw with your head when you are supposed to be in a yellowing and eventually darkening environment according to millions of years of evolution)
Don't forget to drop a mention of F.Lux for computers as well. Late-night eye-strain completely gone.

Re:Ban is dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449851)

Should be a tax. Encourage people to make the right choices, but don't screw people who have special circumstances or are willing to compensate society for the cost of their preference.

Agreed. I suffer from migraines and cluster headaches, and the compact, energy effecient lights make my headaches worse. I already have a headache nearly everyday and live in a shitty miserable existence that means I would blow my brains out if it wasn't for the fact that I don't want my parents to go through that; I don't need the government telling me the only light bulbs I'll be able to buy for the rest of my life will make my standard of living worse.

AlphaA

(5) offtopic (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449545)

I was just curious. Did anyone else get the email harvesting "survey" from surveymonkeys.com ? Is this a slashdot joke?

Re: Re: RE: REGARDING: re: QUOTEDRe:(5) offtopic (0, Offtopic)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449677)

Would you like to take a survey?

Do you like beans? Do you like George Wendt?

Would you eat beans with George Wendt?

Re: Re: RE: REGARDING: re: QUOTEDRe:(5) offtopic (1)

almitydave (2452422) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449903)

(Score:5, Animaniacs)

Labelling (5, Insightful)

slim (1652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449551)

Is there yet a way to tell at time of purchase whether a CFL bulb is going to warm up in an acceptable time?

I'm assured that bulbs exist that reach a decent brightness in under 10 seconds, but I have yet to manage to buy one.

Re:Labelling (1)

SScorpio (595836) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449623)

They are more expensive but I replaced the six 55W bulbs in my office with LED bulbs. They are 7W bulbs which produce more light than the old 55Ws, they also are instant on.

My oldest one has been running for eight months so I can't comment on how long they last though.

The only issue I have with them is that they don't produce heat so my office gets cold in the winter. I then end up turning on another computer to warm it up, take that energy savings.

Re:Labelling (1)

slim (1652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449675)

What form factor is this? I fitted LED GU10s in my kitchen, and soon put the less efficient halogens back. The packaging suggested that they were equivalent, but subjectively they were dimmer, and the spread was too narrow.

I'm having nothing dimmer than a 100W equivalent as a primary room light.

Re:Labelling (4, Interesting)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449799)

> the spread was too narrow.

Yup. We put up some track lights and found the LED bulbs would illuminate a small patch of floor, but blind you if you looked directly into it.

In order to have lots of light and stay within the current rating of the track, I mixed them 50/50 with halogens. The halogens lit the room, the led were set to be pointing at things like desks that benefit from better illumination.

LED room lights have a way to go before they're a complete replacement.

Re:Labelling (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449801)

My kitchen has a set of 8 GU-10 style fittings on the ceiling, I replaced the 8 x 50W halogens with 8 x 7W LEDs which subjectively give out just as much light. I did in the past experiment with GU-10 8W compact fluorescents (but they take a long time to warm up, and have a relatively short life, and don't look very good). 7W is the minimum for replacing a halogen GU-10 being used as a primary light. Also look at the specification to see what angle of light they cast - some cheap ones put out a very narrow beam to look apparently as bright, but they just don't have the light output.

I won't be going back to the halogens.

Re:Labelling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449861)

It's because the packaging lies, basically. You have to look at lumens and compare to an incandescent you like (most write the lumens on the package). I've personally tried quite a few LED bulbs, and the only ones I like are the Philips award winning ones. With those, 12w is equal to 60w (and they are dim able). Other than the initial cost (I get them on sale for half price, $15), they are superior to incandescent in every way - that's something you could never say about CFL's. I honestly think part of the reason the governments have to ban incandescent is because CFL's are so bad.

Re:Labelling (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449901)

I had a similar experience. I run a 300W halogen J type bulb in my livingroom. Just the one illuminates the whole room for years on a bulb. I tried several different ways to achieve the same level of lighting, and it just didn't work.

Re:Labelling (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449657)

Brand loyalty. With the incandescents, bulbs are basically interchangeable - it doesn't matter who made it. No difference at all. This is not true of CFLs, so when you find a brand or even model that works well, buy them in future.

Restocking fee (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449795)

So how much does it cost to pay the restocking fee for one of each major brand in order to find a brand that works?

Re:Labelling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449663)

Speaking of CFL, I bought one yesterday and was delighted to discover that those wonderful energy-saving "ecological" lamps contain 5% of mercury. It's a good way to save our planet (and myself should the glass break).

Re:Labelling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449789)

If only power production (specifically burning coal) didn't realize mercury into the environment. If only...

Re:Labelling (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449685)

I haven't had that problem with several bulbs, but the quickest ones are 'daylight' bulbs, and that, my friend, is one harsh light.

Re:Labelling (4, Informative)

agallagh42 (301559) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449893)

Is there yet a way to tell at time of purchase whether a CFL bulb is going to warm up in an acceptable time?

I'm assured that bulbs exist that reach a decent brightness in under 10 seconds, but I have yet to manage to buy one.

I've had good luck with the Philips Warm White CFL bulbs. They have a colour that is almost exactly the same as incandescant (I can't tell the difference by looking at them) and they turn on to full brightness instantly. Literally a small fraction of a second, with no flickering at all.

Re:Labelling (5, Interesting)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449899)

Came here to say the same.

I could mod you up, but instead I'll just say, every time I bitch about warm up time in one of these threads, someone replies that I should buy a bulb made this century or by a good manufacturer. Yet no one ever has an example of which ones are the "good manufacturers."

I had a service come in to do an energy audit on my home. I expected to hear a lot about insulation and drafty windows. Instead the guy just went through and changed all the bulbs he could to CFLs. I've also purchased CFLs in the past. These are GE and Sylvania bulbs.

1. These bulbs do not last as long as advertised. I've been in my house for 8 years and there are fixtures that have had bulbs burn out at least twice (ie, fixtures on their 3rd CFL bulb in 8 years).

2. Dimmable? If you consider going from off to warming up to on dimmable, then yes. If you mean on demand dimmable with a dimmer switch, then no not dimmable.

3. Warm up time. True story: a couple days after I had my "energy audit" I'm a the foot of my stairs and flip the switch for the lights at the top of the stairs.

Nothing happens. It's a 3-way with the other switch at the top, so I flip it back, wondering if the lights were on and I had just turned them off. But still nothing. I give another few flips, still nothing. I'm very puzzled, because light switches are usually very reliable. I don't remember ever having to replace a regular light switch that stopped working.

Then I look up. The switch is working. The lights are coming on. It's just they are so dim, unless I am looking directly at the bulbs, I can't tell if they are on or off.

My daily routine used to be to come home from work, go to my bedroom, turn on the over head light, change out of my work gear in to evening wear, and then go about my night. Now, I come home, go to the bedroom, turn on the over head light, turn on the night stand light, make sure I leave the door open with the hall light on, so I can see while I'm changing. By the time I'm done, all the bulbs have warmed up and I'm squinting from the brightness, but by then I'm leaving the room and turning all those lights off.

So if someone has a line on CFLs that don't need minutes to warm up, please share! Until then, I'm going through what CFLs I have and as they burn out, replacing them with real light bulbs that work.

I realize technologies take time to mature and I understand the concept of a public beta test, but CFLs are being pitched as a final product when they aren't nearly as good as the thing they are supposed to replace.

Re:Labelling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449923)

Buy the deal of the week crap ones at lowes/home depot.

I've replaced tons of bulbs with just the standard cheap offerings and so far it's about an 80% success rate.
Ie good color. good startup time. and the bulb doesnt die in a month.
Even a good choice of colors on the warm and cold side too. Can't tell the warm ones from an incandesent in a can fixture. Unless you LOOK at the bulb.

However the ones i really like are the new LED lights walmart carries. For smaller bulb installation(20-25w) these are PERFECT. At only $7. And use only 3 watts.
Wait for these in a 75/100 watt config and we'll really have something!

Yeah they're expensive. But i expect LED will live long enough and cost little enough. You'll break even pretty quick.

Big Deal! (1)

derspankster (1081309) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449555)

Another non issue not to give a fuck about...

Re:Big Deal! (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449571)

Except it draws attention from issues worth talking about.

You can't talk about corporate domination of congress when you're talking other bullshit like this.

Re:Big Deal! (1)

derspankster (1081309) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449627)

So very true - deflect, deflect, deflect.

Government Intervention = Black Market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449575)

News at 11.

Fucking socialist communist pigs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449577)

God damn ruskies and youre fucking light bulb

Why ban? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449579)

It's not like these light bulbs contain toxic substances that require careful disposal, or expensive clean-up - should they break, by the public at large. Something like that, I could see perhaps regulating the market a little bit, for public safety and overall health and well-being.

I can get behind LED bulbs (and the need to drive their cost down), but CFLs are a terrible idea for mass-adoption. People don't dispose of their batteries properly, why do we want to give them CFLs again?

Re:Why ban? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449759)

The level of mercury in those bulbs is really minimal. Not a hazard to users, even if the occasional bulb does break. You'd need to break an unrealistic number of bulbs to reach a dangerous level of exposure. I'm not sure about the impact in landfill, but then, I don't imagine people will throw many away. Each bulb lasts many years.

Re:Why ban? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449825)

> The level of mercury in those bulbs is really minimal

5% in the bulb I bought yesterday. It's not minimal to me.

> I'm not sure about the impact in landfill, but then, I don't imagine people will throw many away

I expect that 95% of the people will throw those bulbs away like they did before. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

CFLs don't need expensive clean-up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449847)

If you're that worried about mercury, NEVER EAT FISH.

Fight the ban (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449603)

The republicans are on the right side of this one. Oh well, this is how you divide the opposition and split up voting groups.

Re:Fight the ban (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449849)

The republicans are on the right side of this one.

They might not even realize why. The economics don't always favor the CFL's.

My own personal example of this is a 3-way bulb in our living room lamp. A standard bulb costs about $1.80 and a 3-way CFL costs about $12. I understand about the long term cost benefits of a CFL, so I bought one. Then my five-year-old knocked the lamp off the table and broke the bulb. So, I bought another one. And a month later he did it again. $24 down so far. So, I bought the $1.80 3-way bulb, and if he does it again I'll be out $1.80.

What many economists miss is that when I earn $24, there's a carbon load associated with that. Whether it's my direct energy use, or the energy use of a downstream customer who is paying me. One of my customer's downstream's downstream's downstream is a farmer who uses tractor diesel and fertilizer. His margin is low so that $24 of profit he makes might contain $20 worth of carbon load (OK, I'm ignoring income taxes here, figure 22% off each level).

But, anyway, my options are:
1) buy a new lamp with 3 sockets and put in three low-power CFL's. - $95
2) get rid of the boy - $-300,000
3) keep replacing the bulbs at $12
4) keep replacing the bulbs at $1.80
5) buy two additional lamps and build a bracket to hold them all in the same place - wife kills me + $80
6) install ceiling lights - $350 if I DIY plus eight hours work plus heat leaks through the insulation

Since the bulb is used about 20 minutes a day, the most sensible thing to do here is to keep buying incandescent bulbs, until the boy gets older. But Congress thinks it can form a committee that knows better than hundreds of millions of people making billions of decisions every day.

EDIT: WHAT? WE CAN EDIT COMMENTS?

Good! (1)

rayvd (155635) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449615)

Go Republicans. Let consumers decide which bulbs they prefer. This is not a problem that needs to be solved by expensive regulation and legislation.

Always great to see Slashdot accepting article intros with obvious bias built in! Drop the political stuff, PLEASE?

Re:Good! (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449683)

Wonder who the coal and energy industry gives the most money to and who will profit from more use of energy?

Re:Good! (1)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449841)

They give to everyone, why take a chance that one could loose an election?

Re:Good! (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449831)

p>Always great to see Slashdot accepting article intros with obvious bias built in!

This is the summary to every article submitted to Slashdot ever.

Lavalamps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449635)

How are they going to work without the heat of incandescent light bulbs?

IR lamps (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449821)

Do the regulations also ban IR lamps [wikipedia.org] sold as heat lamps?

This spells death.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449645)

...to the E-Z Bake Oven.

Obama does way more backdoor legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449651)

Obama just instructs the DOJ to stop defending laws like DOMA or immigration, but go ahead and complain about lightbulbs.

Only by the idiots.... (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449679)

The light bulb ban is for the old incandescent. the halogens are NOT banned and work just as good and look just as good. It's all nutjobs that got foaming at the mouth over misinformation. If they had actually taken the time to go and educate themselves instead of listening to the sensationalist talking heads trying to tun something moot into a news story to milk they would have known this.

Your only choise is not only LED or "curly que" CFL bulbs. And anyone that took 3 minutes to look it up would have known this.

Re:Only by the idiots.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449817)

Color me an idiot, but why should I have to buy a CFC for a utility room that I turn on for 15 minutes at a time a couple times a month? I replaced all of my bulbs in my house with either traditional fluorescent or compact fluorescent with the exception of my bathrooms (the CFC died more often than traditional) and my utility room. I've been told it is the humidity that kills it in the bathroom... regardless, I got tired of paying five bucks a pop and went back to 60 watt bulbs.

So, which part makes me an idiot?

Re:Only by the idiots.... (2)

The Moof (859402) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449885)

I think the problem that rubs people the wrong way is the government issuing an outright ban. It's "protecting me from myself" style of legislation. Don't misunderstand that point - I'm in favor of bans for things that are legitimately harmful (for example, lead-based pipes, using asbestos in residential homes). But when they start using bans to make "the proper choice" for me, it becomes a slippery slope.

There are better methods to handle this situation. As other commenters have said, give people incentives to change over, don't slap an outright ban on a product.

No ban solution (2)

ubergeek65536 (862868) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449681)

Why not just change the law so a store can't sell incandescent bulbs cheaper than CFL or LED? You wouldn't need to ban them to have the save effect.

Re:No ban solution (1)

slim (1652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449769)

Why not just change the law so a store can't sell incandescent bulbs cheaper than CFL or LED? You wouldn't need to ban them to have the save effect.

People without strong financial constraints would continue to buy the incandescent bulbs, because they work better in many situations.

And nothing of value was lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449693)

I've always hated the putrid yellow-orange color of incandescent filament bulbs.
I won't miss 'em at all.

And yet it doesn't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449699)

effectively began banning the 100W bulb this year

Bullshit! It bans dim, piss-yellow vacuum or inert-fill bulbs -- 100W halogens remain legal, and deliver more, whiter light for the same energy consumption. Everybody sane and well-informed already switched, but sadly we have a large population of insane and/or ill-informed people who think inert gas bulbs are just bacony tits. Assuming they're mostly the latter, maybe if we educated them regarding the types of bulb available, they wouldn't be so annoyed with the ban -- which we wouldn't even need, since they'd switch anyway.

Stupid Democrats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449713)

Why do we need money to enforce this? Which agency is going to be tasked with enforcement, the FBI, NSA, Fire Department, Swat...

Freaking madness. How about we let the market decide and with Europe and China both banning the product, I don't see incandescents winning out.

I'll be hoarding bulbs too (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449717)

>> One drawback of CFL lamps is that they die more quickly in environments where they're frequently turned on and off . "You have to leave them on at least 15 minutes in order not to kill the light," Smallwood said.

I have a basement, attic and a garage, two of which are often below freezing for a good part of the year. When I'm in there, I'm usually in there for five minutes at a time; I love cheap incandescents for those areas. I also have a number of rooms with "historical" lighting. I'll be stocking up on bulbs for those lamps too. That said, cheaper LED bulbs (thinking of going totally solar/LED in garage/attic) and the newer halogen alternatives for historical fixtures have me intrigued. Just don't make me convert everything to CFL (they give my wife headaches) and we'll be OK.

The whole idea is dumb (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449733)

The price of energy sets the drive to create better bulbs. I made the switch to CFL's years ago and now am using LED when possible. No ridiculous legislation needed. Everyone wants to save power and lower their bill, but you should still be free to pay more and run incandescent lights. I still run two in our stove vent hood. Keeping your food safe from an accidentally broken CFL is a good idea.

Re:The whole idea is dumb (1)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449857)

Incandescents are no safer when broken.

I don't support the ban (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449743)

Although 90% of my lighbulbs in my house are CFC, I don't support the ban. I have a few lightbulbs that will never make sense to replace. They are in utility areas that get used at most 2-3 hours per month. Run the numbers and it just doesn't pay off. My bathroom is another area where my CFCs (General Electric usually) fail more often than incandescents. You cannot tell me it is more environmentally friendly to dispose of CFCs than incandescents.

As a consumer, I pay attention to this stuff and try to make smart decisions. Yet now I get penalized. I'm open to alternatives, but they have to be cost efficient.

Re:I don't support the ban (2)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449879)

A ban is a government's way of saying that not enough people supported alternatives until it was too late.

It's amazing how the very people on this thread complaining about having past costs externalized on them, are happily willing to do the same to people a decade from now, some of them are us.

Well, that's just great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449751)

but what about outdoor lights such as for home entrances? They put 60W incandescents out there for a simple reason, they work in winter and can resist a lot more moisture and bugs.

umm... (0)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449775)

Republican supporters tell me this...

How is wasting electricity a conservative value? Opposing a light bulb ban just seems like opposition for opposition's sake, and some people seriously need to grow the fuck up.

EU ban itself is inefficient (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449777)

You can buy the very same (non-green, energy inefficient) product under a different name: heat bulb instead of light bulb. How does this ban do anything for green fascist then, if I keep and will forever keep using inefficient incadescent light bulbs purchased straight from a EU heat bulb provider?

Easy Bake Ovens (1)

Alien7 (310889) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449791)

There are still many uses that can only provided by incandescent light, for example oh say having a full spectrum light instead of cheap fluorescent glow. Why don't we have the same energy options as major corporations? If only they subsidized CFLs and LEDs and put an energy tax on real light the middle class could still have the option of being able to see their house in warm full spectrum light if they were inclined. What about darkroom photography? CFLs in true red frequencies are hard to come by...What will happen to the easy bake oven?

Republicans disrupting a REPUBLICAN ban! (5, Informative)

nweaver (113078) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449793)

This ban was signed into law by the Bush Administration [wikipedia.org] .

And now, after putting it in place, the Republicans NOW object?

Bequeath your bulbs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449797)

Yes, my 80-year-old mother needs to spend $45 for a bulb lasting 30 years.

How many...? (3, Funny)

leromarinvit (1462031) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449839)

So, how many Republicans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

e-z bake ovens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41449859)

How will people make little taste-less cake? Think of the children! :-)

too dim (1)

fluffernutter (1411889) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449875)

Has anyone found an energy efficient bulb that matches a 60 or 100 watt incandescent in terms of lumens? So far all the ones I have tried that are advertised to be 60 watt equivalent are noticeably more dim.

We have found the enemy, and it's Hasbro! (2)

theendlessnow (516149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41449919)

The ban is really about child obesity and preventing further use of the Easy Bake Oven.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?